The Disease Proprietary, Part I

Naming the Disease That Threatens All

As we round out the last millennium and begin the new on we stand at a
crossroads. It's one well defined and prophesied and evangelized
by Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond, and other Linux luminaries.

Will it be proprietary or free software? Will it have the GPL (the
license that ensures the freedom of Linux) or the Sun community License,
not quite so free? Will it be like software coming from the folks at
Microsoft, which, without any exceptions that comes to mind, is always
proprietary--you'll never have the slightest hope of ownership.

At least, not as the company sits today.

To be trivially nitpicky, the GPL doesn't exactly give us ownership,
it just gives us insurance and a good vote. It's democracy as applied
to software. It's no longer making many business people afraid,
and that's a Good Thing(TM). But it's not total insurance.

As Richard Stallman is so fond of pointing out, lots of people really
don't care about software licensing. These people just look at Linux
as a low-cost alternative to Windows. They see a name brand, such
as "Red Hat" Linux (I know, I know, I forgot the "GNU," Richard), and
they buy. These people unknowingly give up freedom when they turn
around and purchase another operating system like Windows, or
proprietary software products that are additions to Linux, even.

I'm going to surprise some of you out there and say that I don't think
that proprietary software is all that bad in certain areas. But for
commodity items like Web browsers, operating systems, and the like,
especially when the disease goes wildly unchecked, it's a disaster.

I'd like to dig a bit deeper and hit a buried artery in the
software-naming cadaver. I'd like to examine the undercurrents of the
disease proprietary with respect to the real disease, and the real
transfer mechanism. That mechanism is immorality.

When Microsoft breaks a well-known protocol with their own version
that's just not quite there, or when they don't publish all of an
API (application programming interface), is what they are doing
illegal? I don't see any laws on the books to stop it. It's tricky
business, without a doubt. It's "dirty-pool" in some peoples'
judgment.

But illegal? No.

Immoral? Without a doubt. It's a symptom of the disease proprietary.
How many licenses, initiatives, and lines of code do we need to write
before we kill the disease, or at least render it powerless over our
lives? When does this stop?

What we are doing is providing shelters and mechanisms for people who
wish to live their lives in an immoral world, yet in a moral way.
These people want a fair chance at a living and they want their tools
to be free of control by large corporate entities who refuse to give them
a vote, otherwise.

What of the monopolies that Microsoft owns today? What if we left the
company unchecked by the current vaccination? Let's imagine the
scenario.

Imagine a Web owned by Microsoft. Imagine Web servers with less than
abysmal quality (worse than Windows NT of today, because Linux isn't
around to compete with it and force the stability to at least today's
levels). Imagine Microsoft owning and taking over AOL. Imagine
Microsoft eventually owning all of the ISP space.

Do you think things would be better than today? Do you think that
the Internet would be less expensive? Do you think speech would be
more free than now? Do you think I would be able to write this and
be heard by anyone?

Imagine the disease proprietary going to its full potential in all
directions. Imagine the banking industry being owned by Microsoft.

A horror movie could be made out of it. It reminds me a bit of
Rollerball, without the various large corporations in charge, instead
it would be one huge corporation--one that eventually becomes our
government and/or church.

No, the disease proprietary would then be very easy for any layperson to
spot. Today, it's just easy for us (the people in the Free Software
movement) to see. Today, we see a lot of things that are clearly
out of scale and overpriced, and with abysmal, unacceptable quality.

Today we fight the disease proprietary without naming it. Today we
belong to the last hope for freedom--the Free Software Community.

Bill Gates would have us believe that his company has been
responsible for the innovation of the Internet. He would defend his
company and its immoral practices, and even say we should be thankful
for what he has done. The truth of the matter is that the Internet
has come about thanks to free software tools--it's mainly powered by them,
and it's continuing to grow in that direction.

Perl, Apache, Linux, BSD--the list is long, the products
practically indestructible, of a bulletproof quality. In short
order, the tools that used to cost thousands of dollars became
available for free to all.

I'll go beyond that--you can't buy software
this good anymore. In short, despite Microsoft and all of their
stammering about being regulated, what we have today is something to
truly be thankful for, and it came about despite their efforts to squash it.

I postulate that if we need to be thankful to Microsoft for anything,
it's for helping put a name on the problem. They have certainly
provided examples of what happens when the disease runs wildly out of
control.

A heart-felt thanks to the people in the Free Software and Open
Source communities for trying to end the disease proprietary while
it was still in incubation.

Vaccinate yourself against the disease proprietary--try Linux or
one of the BSDs if you are in any way disturbed by the censorship and
anti-anti-trust transactions of Microsoft. Become part of the solution,
and stop spending money helping those who disseminate the disease.

The sooner they come to the realization that the public will no longer
tolerate their illness, the sooner the rehabilitation can begin.

This is part I of a series of articles I will be writing on the
disease proprietary,
a malady of which Microsoft has so obliviously
provided an example. As those of you in the medical and psychological
communities know, it's hard to fight a disease without first naming it.

I wish to put a name to the disease. We have names for Free Software
and Open Source initiatives, but we have no name for that which I feel
we are truly fighting. It isn't Microsoft--they are just currently one
of the most visible examples. IBM once suffered the same disease,
and AOL appears to be just now coming down with some of the symptoms.

No, that which we fight is a process, and a malady that is very much
power-centric. It is ageless and tireless, and mankind may have fought
similar strains for years on different battlegrounds.

The new digital landscape has provided more than new opportunities. It has created a new
strain of a familiar, yet dangerous, disease.

Paul Ferris, May 2000

Most Popular LinuxPlanet Stories

Advertiser Disclosure:
Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which QuinStreet receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. QuinStreet does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.